Wildlife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011: Addendum to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation Report 2011-2

1907.pdf
[1.38 MB]
Link will provide options to open or save document.

File Format:

Adobe Reader

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Wildlife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011
Addendum to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2011-2Wildlife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011
Addendum to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2011-2
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
February 2014
James Caudill, Ph.D.
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Economics
Arlington, VA
This report is intended to complement the National and State reports from the 2011 National Survey of fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. The conclusions are the authors and do not represent official positions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.2 Wildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011
Wildlife watching remains one of the
most popular types of outdoor recreation
in the United States. Thirty percent of
the U.S. population 16 years of age and
older enjoyed closely observing, feeding,
and photographing wildlife (wildlife
watching) in 2011. Of those 72 million
individuals, 96 percent wildlife watched
around their homes, and 31 percent took
trips away from home to wildlife watch.
In addition to contributing significantly
to people’s enjoyment of the outdoors,
wildlife watching has a substantial impact
on the nation’s economies. The $54.9
billion spent in 2011 on wildlife equipment
and trips contributed substantially to
federal, state and local tax revenues, jobs,
earnings, and economic output.
This report presents estimates of the
national and state economic impacts
of wildlife watching. Estimates were
derived using data from the 2011
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
(National Survey). The following topics
are addressed: (1) national participation
in wildlife watching; (2) expenditures
associated with participation in wildlife
watching; (3) estimates of the total
economic activity generated by those
expenditures; (4) total employment and
employment income associated with
those expenditures; and (5) estimates of
associated state, local, and federal tax
revenues. Two other reports have used
the 2011 National Survey to address the
national and state economic impacts of
hunting and fishing1.
1 See Hunting in America: An Economic
Force for Conservation, Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies and Sportfishing
in America: An Economic Force for
Conservation, American Sportfishing
Association.
The National Survey collected
information on fishing, hunting, and
wildlife-watching participation and
expenditures in 2011. National and state
reports are accessible on the following
U.S. Census Bureau website: http://www.
census.gov/prod/www/fishing.html
Introduction
USFWS
Table 1. Summary of National Economic
Impacts of Wildlife Watching: 2011
Wildlife Watchers 71,776,000
Total Expenditures(1) $54,890,272,000
Total Industrial Output(2) $142,147,057,177
Jobs 1,379,282
Salaries and Wages $53,036,586,430
State and Local
Tax Revenues
$10,277,128,026
Federal Tax Revenues $10,818,805,399
(1) Retail sales
(2) Total multiplier effect
Wildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011 3
Table 2 shows the number of resident and
nonresident wildlife watchers by state in
2011. The 72 million people who wildlife
watched are further categorized as
around-the-home and away-from-home
participants. Of the 72 million people
who wildlife watched, 68.6 million did so
within one mile of their homes. These 68.6
million recreationists are referred to as
around-the-home participants2. The 22.5
million wildlife watchers who took trips
or outings of at least one mile from home
to engage in their activities are referred
to as away-from-home participants.
2 Their activities include one or more of the
following; (1) closely observing or trying
to identify birds or other wildlife; (2)
photographing wildlife; (3) feeding birds
or other wildlife on a regular basis; (4)
maintaining natural areas of at least one-quarter
acre for which benefit to wildlife
is the primary purpose; (5) maintaining
plantings (shrubs, agricultural crops, etc.)
for which benefit to wildlife is the primary
concern; or (6) visiting public parks within
one mile of home for the primary purpose
of observing, feeding, or photographing
wildlife.
Participation in Wildlife Watching
Inside The Numbers
Nearly a third of all Americans 16 years of age and older, or 72 million,
participated in wildlife watching in 2011
The 72 million wildlife watches is nearly equal to the total attendance of all
Major League baseball games in the 2011 season.
Expenditures on Wildlife-watching totaled $54.9 billion – more than twice that
spent on spectator sports such as football, baseball in 2011.
USFWS
USFWS
4 Wildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011
Table 2. Number of Wildlife Watchers by State: 2011
(Population 16 years and older)
State
Wildlife Watchers
Alabama
1,114,000
Alaska
640,000
Arizona
1,566,000
Arkansas
852,000
California
6,733,000
Colorado
1,782,000
Connecticut
1,178,000
Delaware
243,000
Florida
4,308,000
Georgia
2,393,000
Hawaii
358,000
Idaho
558,000
Illinois
3,019,000
Indiana
1,719,000
Iowa
837,000
Kansas
792,000
Kentucky
1,319,000
Louisiana
1,010,000
Maine
838,000
Maryland
1,362,000
Massachusetts
1,828,000
Michigan
3,199,000
Minnesota
1,577,000
Mississippi
781,000
Missouri
1,716,000
Montana
402,000
Nebraska
384,000
Nevada
643,000
New Hampshire
630,000
New Jersey
1,875,000
New Mexico
566,000
New York
4,239,000
North Carolina
2,432,000
North Dakota
NA
Ohio
3,197,000
Oklahoma
1,263,000
Oregon
1,440,000
Pennsylvania
3,598,000
Rhode Island
308,000
South Carolina
1,103,000
South Dakota
384,000
Tennessee
1,955,000
Texas
4,376,000
Utah
717,000
Vermont
370,000
Virginia
2,509,000
Washington
2,168,000
West Virginia
850,000
Wisconsin
2,359,000
Wyoming
518,000
U.S.
71,776,000
Economic Impact Quick Facts
Expenditures rippled through the economy generating $142 billion in total industry input and 1.4 million jobs
The 1,379,282 million jobs supported by wildlife watchers in 2011 were almost twice the number of people who worked for the United Postal Service in the U.S.
Figure 1. Wildlife Expenditures by Major Category: 2011
(Total Expenditures: $54.9 billion)
Figure 2. Trip Expenditures for Wildlife Watching: 2011
(Total Trip Expenditures: $17.3 billion)
Equipment: 49%$27.2 billionOther: 19%$10.5 billionTrip-related: 32%$17.3 billionTransportation: 35%$6.0 billionLodging: 22%$3.9 billionFood: 32%$5.5 billionOther: 11%$1.9 billionWildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011 5
spending associated with wildlife
watching has a substantial impact on
economic activity, employment, and
household income across the nation.
Methods
The 2011 National Survey contains
estimates of annual travel and equipment
expenditures by wildlife-watching
participants. These expenditures were
used in conjunction with an economic
modeling method known as input-output
analysis3 to estimate total industry
output, employment, and employment
income associated with these
expenditures.
Direct Expenditures
Total direct expenditures by participants
were $54.9 billion in 2011. Trip-related
expenditures accounted for about $17.3
billion (32 percent of total expenditures).
Food and drink accounted for 32 percent
of total trip-related expenditures and
transportation and lodging accounted for
35 and 23 percent, respectively. Other
trip-related expenditures, such as land
use fees, rentals, and boating costs,
accounted for about 11% of trip-related
expenditures.
Equipment and other expenditures
accounted for $37.6 billion (69 percent of
total expenditures). Special equipment
such as off-the-road vehicles, tent
trailers, motor homes, pick-up trucks,
and boats accounted for 26 percent of
total expenditures. Packaged and bulk
wild bird food accounted for 7 percent
of total expenditures. Photographic
equipment such as cameras accounted for
5 percent; film and developing accounted
for 1 percent.
3 The estimates of total economic activity,
employment, employment income and
federal, state and local taxes in this report
were derived using IMPLAN, a regional
input-output model and software system.
For additional information, see IMPLAN
LCC (http://implan.com/) and Miller and
Blair for further information on Input-
Output analysis.
Spending associated with wildlife
watching generates a substantial amount
of economic activity across the United
States. Table 3 shows wildlife-watching
expenditures by category for 2011. Table
4 shows the top ten states in wildlife
expenditures. Participants spent $54.9
billion in 2011 on a wide variety of goods
and services.
Trip-related expenditures by away-from-home
participants include expenses for
food, lodging, and transportation. Both
around-the-home and away-from-home
participants also buy equipment and
related goods for the primary purpose
of engaging in wildlife watching such
as binoculars, cameras, wild bird food,
memberships in wildlife organizations,
camping equipment, motor homes,
campers, and off-the-road vehicles.
To help place the $54.9 billion on wildlife-watching
expenditures into context,
this total would rank 44th on the 2011
Fortune 500 list (2011 revenue), just
ahead of Dow Chemical and MetLife and
just behind Microsoft (at $62.5 billion).
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/
fortune500/2011/full_list/
These direct expenditures are only
part of the total picture. Businesses
and industries that supply the local
retailers where the purchases are made
also benefit from wildlife-watching
expenditures. For example, a family may
decide to purchase a pair of binoculars
to use primarily for bird watching
on an upcoming vacation. Part of the
total purchase price will go to the local
retailer such as a sporting goods store.
The sporting goods store in turn pays
a wholesaler that in turn pays the
manufacturer of the binoculars. The
manufacturer then spends a portion of
this income to pay businesses supplying
the manufacturer.
In this fashion, each dollar of local retail
expenditures can affect a variety of
businesses at the local, regional, and
national level. Consequently, consumer
The Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching
USFWS
6 Wildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011
Table 3. Wildlife Watching Expenditures by Category: 2011
Category Expenditures
Percent of Category
Expenditures
Percent of Total
Expenditures
Trip-related Expenditures
Food $5,465,019,000 31.6% 10.0%
Lodging $3,884,420,000 22.5% 7.1%
Public Transportation $2,521,247,000 14.6% 4.6%
Private Transportation $3,485,613,000 20.2% 6.4%
Guide fees, pack trip or package fees $775,074,000 4.5% 1.4%
Public Land use fees $239,021,000 1.4% 0.4%
Private land Use Fees $113,207,000 0.7% 0.2%
Equipment Rental $141,017,000 0.8% 0.3%
Boating Costs $547,875,000 3.2% 1.0%
Heating and cooking fuel $102,182,000 0.6% 0.2%
Total Trip-related $17,274,675,000 100.0% 31.5%
Equipment
Wildlife-Watching equipment
Binoculars, spotting scopes $918,567,000 8.1% 1.7%
Cameras, video cameras, special lenses, and other photographic equipment $2,799,579,000 24.7% 5.1%
Film and Developing $528,057,000 4.7% 1.0%
Commercially prepared and packaged wild bird food $3,133,968,000 27.7% 5.7%
Other bulk foods used to feed wild birds $934,194,000 8.3% 1.7%
Feed for other wildlife $1,012,964,000 8.9% 1.8%
Nest Boxes, bird houses, feeders, baths $969,708,000 8.6% 1.8%
Day packs, carrying cases and special clothing $855,196,000 7.6% 1.6%
Other wildlife-watching equipment (such as field guides and maps) $170,946,000 1.5% 0.3%
Wildlife-watching equipment, total $11,323,179,000 100.0% 20.6%
Auxiliary equipment
Tents, Tarps $289,781,000 18.6% 0.5%
Frame packs and backpacking equipment $216,231,000 13.9% 0.4%
Other camping equipment $294,173,000 18.9% 0.5%
Other auxiliary equipment (such as blinds) $755,188,000 48.6% 1.4%
Auxiliary equipment, total $1,555,374,000 100.0% 2.8%
Special equipment
Off-the-road vehicle $6,475,469,000 45.4% 11.8%
Travel or tent trailer, pickup, camper, van, motor home, recreational vehicle $5,868,982,000 41.1% 10.7%
Boats, boat accessories $1,703,305,000 11.9% 3.1%
Cabins and other $217,988,000 1.5% 0.4%
Special equipment, total $14,272,368,000 100.0% 26.0%
Other items
Magazines, books $420,395,000 4.0% 0.8%
Land leasing and ownership $5,676,794,000 54.2% 10.3%
Membership dues and contributions $2,163,568,000 20.7% 3.9%
Plantings $2,203,920,000 21.1% 4.0%
Other, total $10,464,677,000 100.0% 19.1%
National Total, All Items $54,890,272,000 100.0 %
Wildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011 7
Total Industry Output
The direct expenditures of $54.9 billion in 2011 generated $142.1 billion in total industrial output (also known as the multiplier or ripple effect) across the United States. The total industrial output includes the direct, indirect, and induced effects4 of wildlife-watching expenditures. The 2.59 ratio of total industrial output to direct expenditures, means that for each $1 of direct spending associated with wildlife watching, an additional $1.59 of economic activity is generated. Major sectors affected include retail trade with $33.5 billion (23.6 percent) of output, manufacturing at $27.2 billion (19.1 percent), and accommodation and food services, with $11.1 billion (7.8 percent).
Employment and Income
The total industrial output of $142.1 billion resulted in 1,379,282 jobs (full and part time) with total income of $53.0 billion. With respect to employment, major industrial sectors affected include retail trade with over 470,335 jobs (34.1 percent); accommodation and food services with 150,342 jobs (10.9 percent); real estate and rental with 88,274 jobs (6.4 percent); and arts, entertainment, and recreation with 71,723 jobs (5.2 percent).
The retail trade sector accounted for the largest portion of income at $15.2 billion (28.7 percent); manufacturing accounted for $6.0 billion (11.3 percent); and accommodation and food services at $3.4 billion (6.5 percent). Table 5 summarizes economic impacts by major business sector.
4 Direct effects are production changes associated with the immediate effects of changes in final demand (in this case, changes in wildlife-associated expenditures); indirect effects are production changes in those industries which supply the inputs to industries directly affected by final demand; induced effects are changes in regional household spending patterns caused by changes in regional employment generated from the direct and indirect effects. See Taylor et al. 1993, Appendix E, p. E-1.
Table 4. Top Ten States Ranked by Economic Output: 2011
Rank
State
Economic Output
Wildlife Watchers
1
New York
$4,151,793,000
4,239,000
2
California
$3,777,674,000
6,733,000
3
Washington
$3,173,373,000
2,168,000
4
Florida
$3,041,333,000
4,308,000
5
Alaska
$2,058,996,580
640,000
6
Texas
$1,823,759,000
4,376,000
7
Georgia
$1,802,424,000
2,393,000
8
Oregon
$1,697,223,000
1,440,000
9
Wisconsin
$1,488,857,000
2,359,000
10
Colorado
$1,432,082,000
1,782,000
USFWS8 Wildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011
Federal and State Taxes
Wildlife-watching expenditures generate taxes at both the state and federal level in a number of ways. Direct and indirect expenditures generate state sales tax (except in those states without sales tax). Employment income is taxed at both the state (with the exception of states which do not tax income) and federal levels. Additionally, tax revenue is generated through taxes on corporate profits and excise taxes such as fuel taxes. Based on total industrial output and associated employment that result from wildlife-watching, 2011 tax revenue at the federal level was $10.8 billion, and tax revenue at the state and local levels was $10.3 billion.
State Impacts
Table 6 shows the economic impacts of wildlife-watching expenditures by state for 2011. Totals for the United States are shown at the bottom of Table 6. State totals do not add up to United States totals because state impact figures show only those impacts which occur within
Table 5. National Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching by Major North American Industrial Classification (NAIC) Sector: 2011
Sector
Industrial Output
Sector as percent of total
Employment
Sector as percent of total
Salaries, wages and Business Owner’s Income
Sector as percent of total
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
$1,563,617,629
1.1%
17,931
1.3%
$477,329,278
0.9%
Mining
$852,882,343
0.6%
5,517
0.4%
$159,109,759
0.3%
Utilities
$1,847,911,743
1.3%
4,138
0.3%
$583,402,451
1.1%
Construction
$1,563,617,629
1.1%
15,172
1.1%
$424,292,691
0.8%
Manufacturing
$27,150,087,921
19.1%
63,447
4.6%
$5,993,134,267
11.3%
Wholesale Trade
$4,406,558,772
3.1%
28,965
2.1%
$2,174,500,044
4.1%
Transportation and Warehousing
$5,543,735,230
3.9%
70,343
5.1%
$2,810,939,081
5.3%
Retail Trade
$33,546,705,494
23.6%
470,335
34.1%
$15,221,500,305
28.7%
Information
$5,543,735,230
3.9%
27,586
2.0%
$1,644,134,179
3.1%
Finance and Insurance
$9,239,558,717
6.5%
37,241
2.7%
$3,288,268,359
6.2%
Real Estate Rental and Leasing
$11,513,911,631
8.1%
88,274
6.4%
$2,651,829,322
5.0%
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services
$5,685,882,287
4.0%
52,413
3.8%
$3,129,158,599
5.9%
Management of Companies
$2,558,647,029
1.8%
15,172
1.1%
$2,227,536,630
4.2%
Administrative and Waste Services
$3,127,235,258
2.2%
70,343
5.1%
$1,697,170,766
3.2%
Educational Services
$1,137,176,457
0.8%
17,931
1.3%
$318,219,519
0.6%
Health and Social Services
$4,975,147,001
3.5%
84,136
6.1%
$2,863,975,667
5.4%
Arts, Entertainment and Recreation
$2,985,088,201
2.1%
71,723
5.2%
$1,485,024,420
2.8%
Accommodation and Food Services
$11,087,470,460
7.8%
150,342
10.9%
$3,447,378,118
6.5%
Other Services
$3,411,529,372
2.4%
70,343
5.1%
$1,856,280,525
3.5%
Government and Non-NAICs
$4,406,558,772
3.1%
17,931
1.3%
$583,402,451
1.1%
Total
$142,147,057,177
100.0%
1,379,282,000
100.0%
$53,036,586,430
100.0%
Impact of Wildlife Watching Expenditures
$10.8 billion in federal tax revenues, and $10.2 billion in state and local tax revenuesthe state. For example, a Bozeman, Montana sporting goods store may carry a brand of fishing tackle that is manufactured in Burlington, Vermont. When an angler purchases the fishing tackle, only a portion of the money is kept by the retailer in Montana. Part of the total selling price goes to the Vermont manufacturer. This transaction between the sporting goods store and the manufacturer (or wholesaler, depending on the situation) will not appear in the Montana state totals. However, the U.S. totals capture these interstate impacts.
USFWSWildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011 9
Table 6. Economic Impact of Wildlife Watching by State in 2011
State
Expenditures(1)
Total
Multiplier Effect(2)
Jobs
Salaries
and Wages
State and Local
Tax Revenues
Federal Tax Revenues
Alabama
$734,204,000
$1,337,607,738
18,513
$500,676,304
$103,558,967
$99,922,934
Alaska
$2,058,996,580
$3,368,780,475
40,493
$1,553,658,942
$311,271,218
$254,559,696
Arizona
$935,879,000
$1,596,262,256
18,728
$623,664,259
$133,611,118
$126,287,964
Arkansas
$216,073,000
$326,790,800
4,586
$116,418,502
$29,001,941
$23,172,913
California
$3,777,674,000
$7,335,913,459
76,941
$3,018,306,584
$647,645,341
$617,700,656
Colorado
$1,432,082,000
$2,650,114,899
31,157
$1,114,213,845
$228,240,368
$228,244,417
Connecticut
$934,703,000
$1,623,177,206
15,961
$654,844,506
$118,313,266
$145,270,697
Delaware
$169,787,000
$280,425,899
3,315
$119,052,667
$26,987,225
$23,612,521
Florida
$3,041,333,000
$5,423,619,174
60,984
$2,189,951,245
$436,326,174
$464,074,516
Georgia
$1,802,424,000
$3,386,449,739
36,368
$1,301,920,392
$248,569,140
$257,771,203
Hawaii
$668,502,000
$1,126,527,932
12,909
$449,877,882
$89,392,831
$85,801,852
Idaho
$432,040,000
$725,484,650
10,439
$260,520,419
$57,620,076
$50,228,086
Illinois
$1,306,258,000
$2,600,538,263
25,549
$997,736,867
$214,609,276
$215,426,760
Indiana
$751,344,000
$1,397,093,617
18,434
$530,993,674
$111,969,867
$102,987,956
Iowa
$711,168,000
$1,210,439,129
16,441
$424,377,547
$95,385,779
$82,746,995
Kansas
$208,415,000
$371,671,631
5,307
$135,755,798
$29,293,659
$26,252,620
Kentucky
$773,221,000
$1,279,475,411
19,275
$516,729,643
$111,085,444
$97,800,734
Louisiana
$542,752,000
$997,958,826
14,246
$367,042,428
$67,319,157
$61,627,403
Maine
$798,854,000
$1,295,149,853
17,812
$495,327,193
$103,636,915
$90,514,820
Maryland
$483,421,000
$909,888,028
10,807
$392,055,656
$88,438,659
$80,520,761
Massachusetts
$1,277,898,000
$2,319,939,675
24,355
$979,560,664
$208,295,703
$209,041,658
Michigan
$1,220,817,000
$2,160,928,476
24,775
$831,328,644
$188,967,886
$167,783,326
Minnesota
$621,289,000
$1,156,452,536
13,855
$427,449,866
$87,049,598
$89,589,028
Mississippi
$342,421,000
$535,732,295
7,391
$180,957,586
$42,843,933
$33,152,278
Missouri
$940,816,000
$1,800,712,259
21,763
$643,733,119
$139,738,701
$129,423,776
Montana
$400,796,000
$664,098,149
11,102
$245,218,783
$52,799,037
$51,906,749
Nebraska
$513,255,000
$917,723,993
11,450
$347,374,850
$78,599,856
$66,366,754
Nevada
$682,029,000
$1,094,087,667
12,491
$418,774,955
$93,408,700
$97,459,452
New Hampshire
$281,190,000
$454,884,554
5,663
$172,983,128
$35,718,943
$37,814,436
New Jersey
$986,277,000
$1,758,541,631
16,769
$684,319,933
$140,560,789
$154,752,981
New Mexico
$327,119,000
$557,874,463
8,151
$211,540,928
$49,111,736
$36,988,935
New York
$4,151,793,000
$7,507,779,472
79,921
$3,051,051,895
$721,683,009
$624,469,161
North Carolina
$929,663,000
$1,674,095,198
20,636
$628,627,734
$144,742,084
$129,762,265
North Dakota
$130,184,000
$206,086,891
2,950
$72,830,440
$15,814,811
$14,357,992
Ohio
$738,805,000
$1,379,777,256
16,275
$503,677,242
$113,420,714
$95,208,719
Oklahoma
$474,662,000
$863,767,996
13,167
$297,847,830
$58,496,559
$56,865,284
Oregon
$1,697,223,000
$3,121,531,880
41,243
$1,264,990,530
$284,493,082
$274,511,570
Pennsylvania
$1,270,888,000
$2,444,885,524
26,579
$912,761,463
$185,533,170
$188,494,228
Rhode Island
$200,480,000
$302,850,456
3,679
$114,349,135
$27,504,511
$24,058,109
South Carolina
$467,254,000
$824,033,220
11,194
$300,154,146
$63,879,265
$57,360,269
South Dakota
$166,995,000
$230,992,366
3,749
$80,476,958
$15,595,298
$15,410,434
Tennessee
$942,573,000
$1,767,482,300
23,256
$670,860,077
$131,825,603
$134,167,350
Texas
$1,823,759,000
$13,830,501,882
146,024
$5,088,942,848
$1,073,745,789
$1,054,082,569
Utah
$585,404,000
$1,070,956,389
14,958
$428,091,442
$89,525,631
$79,882,617
Vermont
$288,507,000
$473,910,583
7,960
$189,856,400
$39,593,056
$36,007,004
Virginia
$958,607,000
$1,730,743,274
23,616
$689,396,553
$122,809,236
$135,396,663
Washington
$3,173,373,000
$5,549,730,265
63,327
$2,132,888,979
$448,488,469
$453,532,429
West Virginia
$325,817,122
$494,302,602
7,721
$184,411,508
$38,887,302
$35,193,978
Wisconsin
$1,488,857,000
$2,631,408,933
36,462
$974,552,606
$235,999,781
$193,894,294
Wyoming
$350,257,000
$556,070,251
8,232
$197,738,723
$46,872,106
$42,621,222
U.S.
$54,890,272,000
$142,147,057,177
1,379,282
$53,036,586,430
$10,277,128,026
$10,818,805,399
(1) Retail Sales (2) Industry Output or Ripple Effect10 Wildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011
Wildlife-watching in the U.S. has
significant economic impacts at the
local, state, and national levels. In
2011, expenditures on wildlife watching
generated $142.0 billion in economic
output, 1.4 million jobs, and $21.1 billion
in state, local, and federal tax revenues.
Wildlife watching’s continued popularity
gives evidence to the importance that
people attach to diverse, accessible, and
robust fish and wildlife populations.
The magnitude of its economic impacts
proves that wildlife watching is a major
force, driving billions in spending around
the country. These economic impacts can
be the life-blood of a local economy. Rural
areas can attract thousands of wildlife
watchers each year, generating millions
of dollars.
USFWS
Summary
USFWS
Wildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011 11
Fortune Magazine. http://money.cnn.
com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/
full_list/ Accessed January 2014.
IMPLAN Group LCC. IMPLAN Version
3 software and data system. Huntersville,
North Carolina. http://implan.com
Miller, Ronald E. and Peter D. Blair.
Input-Output Analysis: Foundations
and Extensions. Englewood Cliffs NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1985.
Southwick Associates. Hunting in
America: An Economic Force for
Conservation. Produced for the
National Shooting Sports Foundation in
partnership with the Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies. 2012.
Southwick Associates. Sportfishing
in America: An Economic Force
for Conservation. Produced for the
American Sportfishing Association (ASA)
under a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) Sportfishing Restoration
Grant (F12AP00137, VA M-26-R)
awarded by the Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), 2012
Taylor, Carol, Susan Winter, Greg Alward
and Eric Siverts. Micro IMPLAN User’s
Guide. Fort Collins CO: U.S. Department
of Agriculture – Forest Service, Land
Management Planning Systems Group,
1993.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2011
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
Washington DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, Revised September 2013.
Sources
USFWS
USFWS
12 Wildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011
All photos: USFWS
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov
Cover photo: USFWS

Click tabs to swap between content that is broken into logical sections.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Wildlife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011
Addendum to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2011-2Wildlife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011
Addendum to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
Report 2011-2
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
February 2014
James Caudill, Ph.D.
U.S Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Economics
Arlington, VA
This report is intended to complement the National and State reports from the 2011 National Survey of fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. The conclusions are the authors and do not represent official positions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.2 Wildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011
Wildlife watching remains one of the
most popular types of outdoor recreation
in the United States. Thirty percent of
the U.S. population 16 years of age and
older enjoyed closely observing, feeding,
and photographing wildlife (wildlife
watching) in 2011. Of those 72 million
individuals, 96 percent wildlife watched
around their homes, and 31 percent took
trips away from home to wildlife watch.
In addition to contributing significantly
to people’s enjoyment of the outdoors,
wildlife watching has a substantial impact
on the nation’s economies. The $54.9
billion spent in 2011 on wildlife equipment
and trips contributed substantially to
federal, state and local tax revenues, jobs,
earnings, and economic output.
This report presents estimates of the
national and state economic impacts
of wildlife watching. Estimates were
derived using data from the 2011
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation
(National Survey). The following topics
are addressed: (1) national participation
in wildlife watching; (2) expenditures
associated with participation in wildlife
watching; (3) estimates of the total
economic activity generated by those
expenditures; (4) total employment and
employment income associated with
those expenditures; and (5) estimates of
associated state, local, and federal tax
revenues. Two other reports have used
the 2011 National Survey to address the
national and state economic impacts of
hunting and fishing1.
1 See Hunting in America: An Economic
Force for Conservation, Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies and Sportfishing
in America: An Economic Force for
Conservation, American Sportfishing
Association.
The National Survey collected
information on fishing, hunting, and
wildlife-watching participation and
expenditures in 2011. National and state
reports are accessible on the following
U.S. Census Bureau website: http://www.
census.gov/prod/www/fishing.html
Introduction
USFWS
Table 1. Summary of National Economic
Impacts of Wildlife Watching: 2011
Wildlife Watchers 71,776,000
Total Expenditures(1) $54,890,272,000
Total Industrial Output(2) $142,147,057,177
Jobs 1,379,282
Salaries and Wages $53,036,586,430
State and Local
Tax Revenues
$10,277,128,026
Federal Tax Revenues $10,818,805,399
(1) Retail sales
(2) Total multiplier effect
Wildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011 3
Table 2 shows the number of resident and
nonresident wildlife watchers by state in
2011. The 72 million people who wildlife
watched are further categorized as
around-the-home and away-from-home
participants. Of the 72 million people
who wildlife watched, 68.6 million did so
within one mile of their homes. These 68.6
million recreationists are referred to as
around-the-home participants2. The 22.5
million wildlife watchers who took trips
or outings of at least one mile from home
to engage in their activities are referred
to as away-from-home participants.
2 Their activities include one or more of the
following; (1) closely observing or trying
to identify birds or other wildlife; (2)
photographing wildlife; (3) feeding birds
or other wildlife on a regular basis; (4)
maintaining natural areas of at least one-quarter
acre for which benefit to wildlife
is the primary purpose; (5) maintaining
plantings (shrubs, agricultural crops, etc.)
for which benefit to wildlife is the primary
concern; or (6) visiting public parks within
one mile of home for the primary purpose
of observing, feeding, or photographing
wildlife.
Participation in Wildlife Watching
Inside The Numbers
Nearly a third of all Americans 16 years of age and older, or 72 million,
participated in wildlife watching in 2011
The 72 million wildlife watches is nearly equal to the total attendance of all
Major League baseball games in the 2011 season.
Expenditures on Wildlife-watching totaled $54.9 billion – more than twice that
spent on spectator sports such as football, baseball in 2011.
USFWS
USFWS
4 Wildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011
Table 2. Number of Wildlife Watchers by State: 2011
(Population 16 years and older)
State
Wildlife Watchers
Alabama
1,114,000
Alaska
640,000
Arizona
1,566,000
Arkansas
852,000
California
6,733,000
Colorado
1,782,000
Connecticut
1,178,000
Delaware
243,000
Florida
4,308,000
Georgia
2,393,000
Hawaii
358,000
Idaho
558,000
Illinois
3,019,000
Indiana
1,719,000
Iowa
837,000
Kansas
792,000
Kentucky
1,319,000
Louisiana
1,010,000
Maine
838,000
Maryland
1,362,000
Massachusetts
1,828,000
Michigan
3,199,000
Minnesota
1,577,000
Mississippi
781,000
Missouri
1,716,000
Montana
402,000
Nebraska
384,000
Nevada
643,000
New Hampshire
630,000
New Jersey
1,875,000
New Mexico
566,000
New York
4,239,000
North Carolina
2,432,000
North Dakota
NA
Ohio
3,197,000
Oklahoma
1,263,000
Oregon
1,440,000
Pennsylvania
3,598,000
Rhode Island
308,000
South Carolina
1,103,000
South Dakota
384,000
Tennessee
1,955,000
Texas
4,376,000
Utah
717,000
Vermont
370,000
Virginia
2,509,000
Washington
2,168,000
West Virginia
850,000
Wisconsin
2,359,000
Wyoming
518,000
U.S.
71,776,000
Economic Impact Quick Facts
Expenditures rippled through the economy generating $142 billion in total industry input and 1.4 million jobs
The 1,379,282 million jobs supported by wildlife watchers in 2011 were almost twice the number of people who worked for the United Postal Service in the U.S.
Figure 1. Wildlife Expenditures by Major Category: 2011
(Total Expenditures: $54.9 billion)
Figure 2. Trip Expenditures for Wildlife Watching: 2011
(Total Trip Expenditures: $17.3 billion)
Equipment: 49%$27.2 billionOther: 19%$10.5 billionTrip-related: 32%$17.3 billionTransportation: 35%$6.0 billionLodging: 22%$3.9 billionFood: 32%$5.5 billionOther: 11%$1.9 billionWildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011 5
spending associated with wildlife
watching has a substantial impact on
economic activity, employment, and
household income across the nation.
Methods
The 2011 National Survey contains
estimates of annual travel and equipment
expenditures by wildlife-watching
participants. These expenditures were
used in conjunction with an economic
modeling method known as input-output
analysis3 to estimate total industry
output, employment, and employment
income associated with these
expenditures.
Direct Expenditures
Total direct expenditures by participants
were $54.9 billion in 2011. Trip-related
expenditures accounted for about $17.3
billion (32 percent of total expenditures).
Food and drink accounted for 32 percent
of total trip-related expenditures and
transportation and lodging accounted for
35 and 23 percent, respectively. Other
trip-related expenditures, such as land
use fees, rentals, and boating costs,
accounted for about 11% of trip-related
expenditures.
Equipment and other expenditures
accounted for $37.6 billion (69 percent of
total expenditures). Special equipment
such as off-the-road vehicles, tent
trailers, motor homes, pick-up trucks,
and boats accounted for 26 percent of
total expenditures. Packaged and bulk
wild bird food accounted for 7 percent
of total expenditures. Photographic
equipment such as cameras accounted for
5 percent; film and developing accounted
for 1 percent.
3 The estimates of total economic activity,
employment, employment income and
federal, state and local taxes in this report
were derived using IMPLAN, a regional
input-output model and software system.
For additional information, see IMPLAN
LCC (http://implan.com/) and Miller and
Blair for further information on Input-
Output analysis.
Spending associated with wildlife
watching generates a substantial amount
of economic activity across the United
States. Table 3 shows wildlife-watching
expenditures by category for 2011. Table
4 shows the top ten states in wildlife
expenditures. Participants spent $54.9
billion in 2011 on a wide variety of goods
and services.
Trip-related expenditures by away-from-home
participants include expenses for
food, lodging, and transportation. Both
around-the-home and away-from-home
participants also buy equipment and
related goods for the primary purpose
of engaging in wildlife watching such
as binoculars, cameras, wild bird food,
memberships in wildlife organizations,
camping equipment, motor homes,
campers, and off-the-road vehicles.
To help place the $54.9 billion on wildlife-watching
expenditures into context,
this total would rank 44th on the 2011
Fortune 500 list (2011 revenue), just
ahead of Dow Chemical and MetLife and
just behind Microsoft (at $62.5 billion).
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/
fortune500/2011/full_list/
These direct expenditures are only
part of the total picture. Businesses
and industries that supply the local
retailers where the purchases are made
also benefit from wildlife-watching
expenditures. For example, a family may
decide to purchase a pair of binoculars
to use primarily for bird watching
on an upcoming vacation. Part of the
total purchase price will go to the local
retailer such as a sporting goods store.
The sporting goods store in turn pays
a wholesaler that in turn pays the
manufacturer of the binoculars. The
manufacturer then spends a portion of
this income to pay businesses supplying
the manufacturer.
In this fashion, each dollar of local retail
expenditures can affect a variety of
businesses at the local, regional, and
national level. Consequently, consumer
The Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching
USFWS
6 Wildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011
Table 3. Wildlife Watching Expenditures by Category: 2011
Category Expenditures
Percent of Category
Expenditures
Percent of Total
Expenditures
Trip-related Expenditures
Food $5,465,019,000 31.6% 10.0%
Lodging $3,884,420,000 22.5% 7.1%
Public Transportation $2,521,247,000 14.6% 4.6%
Private Transportation $3,485,613,000 20.2% 6.4%
Guide fees, pack trip or package fees $775,074,000 4.5% 1.4%
Public Land use fees $239,021,000 1.4% 0.4%
Private land Use Fees $113,207,000 0.7% 0.2%
Equipment Rental $141,017,000 0.8% 0.3%
Boating Costs $547,875,000 3.2% 1.0%
Heating and cooking fuel $102,182,000 0.6% 0.2%
Total Trip-related $17,274,675,000 100.0% 31.5%
Equipment
Wildlife-Watching equipment
Binoculars, spotting scopes $918,567,000 8.1% 1.7%
Cameras, video cameras, special lenses, and other photographic equipment $2,799,579,000 24.7% 5.1%
Film and Developing $528,057,000 4.7% 1.0%
Commercially prepared and packaged wild bird food $3,133,968,000 27.7% 5.7%
Other bulk foods used to feed wild birds $934,194,000 8.3% 1.7%
Feed for other wildlife $1,012,964,000 8.9% 1.8%
Nest Boxes, bird houses, feeders, baths $969,708,000 8.6% 1.8%
Day packs, carrying cases and special clothing $855,196,000 7.6% 1.6%
Other wildlife-watching equipment (such as field guides and maps) $170,946,000 1.5% 0.3%
Wildlife-watching equipment, total $11,323,179,000 100.0% 20.6%
Auxiliary equipment
Tents, Tarps $289,781,000 18.6% 0.5%
Frame packs and backpacking equipment $216,231,000 13.9% 0.4%
Other camping equipment $294,173,000 18.9% 0.5%
Other auxiliary equipment (such as blinds) $755,188,000 48.6% 1.4%
Auxiliary equipment, total $1,555,374,000 100.0% 2.8%
Special equipment
Off-the-road vehicle $6,475,469,000 45.4% 11.8%
Travel or tent trailer, pickup, camper, van, motor home, recreational vehicle $5,868,982,000 41.1% 10.7%
Boats, boat accessories $1,703,305,000 11.9% 3.1%
Cabins and other $217,988,000 1.5% 0.4%
Special equipment, total $14,272,368,000 100.0% 26.0%
Other items
Magazines, books $420,395,000 4.0% 0.8%
Land leasing and ownership $5,676,794,000 54.2% 10.3%
Membership dues and contributions $2,163,568,000 20.7% 3.9%
Plantings $2,203,920,000 21.1% 4.0%
Other, total $10,464,677,000 100.0% 19.1%
National Total, All Items $54,890,272,000 100.0 %
Wildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011 7
Total Industry Output
The direct expenditures of $54.9 billion in 2011 generated $142.1 billion in total industrial output (also known as the multiplier or ripple effect) across the United States. The total industrial output includes the direct, indirect, and induced effects4 of wildlife-watching expenditures. The 2.59 ratio of total industrial output to direct expenditures, means that for each $1 of direct spending associated with wildlife watching, an additional $1.59 of economic activity is generated. Major sectors affected include retail trade with $33.5 billion (23.6 percent) of output, manufacturing at $27.2 billion (19.1 percent), and accommodation and food services, with $11.1 billion (7.8 percent).
Employment and Income
The total industrial output of $142.1 billion resulted in 1,379,282 jobs (full and part time) with total income of $53.0 billion. With respect to employment, major industrial sectors affected include retail trade with over 470,335 jobs (34.1 percent); accommodation and food services with 150,342 jobs (10.9 percent); real estate and rental with 88,274 jobs (6.4 percent); and arts, entertainment, and recreation with 71,723 jobs (5.2 percent).
The retail trade sector accounted for the largest portion of income at $15.2 billion (28.7 percent); manufacturing accounted for $6.0 billion (11.3 percent); and accommodation and food services at $3.4 billion (6.5 percent). Table 5 summarizes economic impacts by major business sector.
4 Direct effects are production changes associated with the immediate effects of changes in final demand (in this case, changes in wildlife-associated expenditures); indirect effects are production changes in those industries which supply the inputs to industries directly affected by final demand; induced effects are changes in regional household spending patterns caused by changes in regional employment generated from the direct and indirect effects. See Taylor et al. 1993, Appendix E, p. E-1.
Table 4. Top Ten States Ranked by Economic Output: 2011
Rank
State
Economic Output
Wildlife Watchers
1
New York
$4,151,793,000
4,239,000
2
California
$3,777,674,000
6,733,000
3
Washington
$3,173,373,000
2,168,000
4
Florida
$3,041,333,000
4,308,000
5
Alaska
$2,058,996,580
640,000
6
Texas
$1,823,759,000
4,376,000
7
Georgia
$1,802,424,000
2,393,000
8
Oregon
$1,697,223,000
1,440,000
9
Wisconsin
$1,488,857,000
2,359,000
10
Colorado
$1,432,082,000
1,782,000
USFWS8 Wildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011
Federal and State Taxes
Wildlife-watching expenditures generate taxes at both the state and federal level in a number of ways. Direct and indirect expenditures generate state sales tax (except in those states without sales tax). Employment income is taxed at both the state (with the exception of states which do not tax income) and federal levels. Additionally, tax revenue is generated through taxes on corporate profits and excise taxes such as fuel taxes. Based on total industrial output and associated employment that result from wildlife-watching, 2011 tax revenue at the federal level was $10.8 billion, and tax revenue at the state and local levels was $10.3 billion.
State Impacts
Table 6 shows the economic impacts of wildlife-watching expenditures by state for 2011. Totals for the United States are shown at the bottom of Table 6. State totals do not add up to United States totals because state impact figures show only those impacts which occur within
Table 5. National Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching by Major North American Industrial Classification (NAIC) Sector: 2011
Sector
Industrial Output
Sector as percent of total
Employment
Sector as percent of total
Salaries, wages and Business Owner’s Income
Sector as percent of total
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting
$1,563,617,629
1.1%
17,931
1.3%
$477,329,278
0.9%
Mining
$852,882,343
0.6%
5,517
0.4%
$159,109,759
0.3%
Utilities
$1,847,911,743
1.3%
4,138
0.3%
$583,402,451
1.1%
Construction
$1,563,617,629
1.1%
15,172
1.1%
$424,292,691
0.8%
Manufacturing
$27,150,087,921
19.1%
63,447
4.6%
$5,993,134,267
11.3%
Wholesale Trade
$4,406,558,772
3.1%
28,965
2.1%
$2,174,500,044
4.1%
Transportation and Warehousing
$5,543,735,230
3.9%
70,343
5.1%
$2,810,939,081
5.3%
Retail Trade
$33,546,705,494
23.6%
470,335
34.1%
$15,221,500,305
28.7%
Information
$5,543,735,230
3.9%
27,586
2.0%
$1,644,134,179
3.1%
Finance and Insurance
$9,239,558,717
6.5%
37,241
2.7%
$3,288,268,359
6.2%
Real Estate Rental and Leasing
$11,513,911,631
8.1%
88,274
6.4%
$2,651,829,322
5.0%
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services
$5,685,882,287
4.0%
52,413
3.8%
$3,129,158,599
5.9%
Management of Companies
$2,558,647,029
1.8%
15,172
1.1%
$2,227,536,630
4.2%
Administrative and Waste Services
$3,127,235,258
2.2%
70,343
5.1%
$1,697,170,766
3.2%
Educational Services
$1,137,176,457
0.8%
17,931
1.3%
$318,219,519
0.6%
Health and Social Services
$4,975,147,001
3.5%
84,136
6.1%
$2,863,975,667
5.4%
Arts, Entertainment and Recreation
$2,985,088,201
2.1%
71,723
5.2%
$1,485,024,420
2.8%
Accommodation and Food Services
$11,087,470,460
7.8%
150,342
10.9%
$3,447,378,118
6.5%
Other Services
$3,411,529,372
2.4%
70,343
5.1%
$1,856,280,525
3.5%
Government and Non-NAICs
$4,406,558,772
3.1%
17,931
1.3%
$583,402,451
1.1%
Total
$142,147,057,177
100.0%
1,379,282,000
100.0%
$53,036,586,430
100.0%
Impact of Wildlife Watching Expenditures
$10.8 billion in federal tax revenues, and $10.2 billion in state and local tax revenuesthe state. For example, a Bozeman, Montana sporting goods store may carry a brand of fishing tackle that is manufactured in Burlington, Vermont. When an angler purchases the fishing tackle, only a portion of the money is kept by the retailer in Montana. Part of the total selling price goes to the Vermont manufacturer. This transaction between the sporting goods store and the manufacturer (or wholesaler, depending on the situation) will not appear in the Montana state totals. However, the U.S. totals capture these interstate impacts.
USFWSWildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011 9
Table 6. Economic Impact of Wildlife Watching by State in 2011
State
Expenditures(1)
Total
Multiplier Effect(2)
Jobs
Salaries
and Wages
State and Local
Tax Revenues
Federal Tax Revenues
Alabama
$734,204,000
$1,337,607,738
18,513
$500,676,304
$103,558,967
$99,922,934
Alaska
$2,058,996,580
$3,368,780,475
40,493
$1,553,658,942
$311,271,218
$254,559,696
Arizona
$935,879,000
$1,596,262,256
18,728
$623,664,259
$133,611,118
$126,287,964
Arkansas
$216,073,000
$326,790,800
4,586
$116,418,502
$29,001,941
$23,172,913
California
$3,777,674,000
$7,335,913,459
76,941
$3,018,306,584
$647,645,341
$617,700,656
Colorado
$1,432,082,000
$2,650,114,899
31,157
$1,114,213,845
$228,240,368
$228,244,417
Connecticut
$934,703,000
$1,623,177,206
15,961
$654,844,506
$118,313,266
$145,270,697
Delaware
$169,787,000
$280,425,899
3,315
$119,052,667
$26,987,225
$23,612,521
Florida
$3,041,333,000
$5,423,619,174
60,984
$2,189,951,245
$436,326,174
$464,074,516
Georgia
$1,802,424,000
$3,386,449,739
36,368
$1,301,920,392
$248,569,140
$257,771,203
Hawaii
$668,502,000
$1,126,527,932
12,909
$449,877,882
$89,392,831
$85,801,852
Idaho
$432,040,000
$725,484,650
10,439
$260,520,419
$57,620,076
$50,228,086
Illinois
$1,306,258,000
$2,600,538,263
25,549
$997,736,867
$214,609,276
$215,426,760
Indiana
$751,344,000
$1,397,093,617
18,434
$530,993,674
$111,969,867
$102,987,956
Iowa
$711,168,000
$1,210,439,129
16,441
$424,377,547
$95,385,779
$82,746,995
Kansas
$208,415,000
$371,671,631
5,307
$135,755,798
$29,293,659
$26,252,620
Kentucky
$773,221,000
$1,279,475,411
19,275
$516,729,643
$111,085,444
$97,800,734
Louisiana
$542,752,000
$997,958,826
14,246
$367,042,428
$67,319,157
$61,627,403
Maine
$798,854,000
$1,295,149,853
17,812
$495,327,193
$103,636,915
$90,514,820
Maryland
$483,421,000
$909,888,028
10,807
$392,055,656
$88,438,659
$80,520,761
Massachusetts
$1,277,898,000
$2,319,939,675
24,355
$979,560,664
$208,295,703
$209,041,658
Michigan
$1,220,817,000
$2,160,928,476
24,775
$831,328,644
$188,967,886
$167,783,326
Minnesota
$621,289,000
$1,156,452,536
13,855
$427,449,866
$87,049,598
$89,589,028
Mississippi
$342,421,000
$535,732,295
7,391
$180,957,586
$42,843,933
$33,152,278
Missouri
$940,816,000
$1,800,712,259
21,763
$643,733,119
$139,738,701
$129,423,776
Montana
$400,796,000
$664,098,149
11,102
$245,218,783
$52,799,037
$51,906,749
Nebraska
$513,255,000
$917,723,993
11,450
$347,374,850
$78,599,856
$66,366,754
Nevada
$682,029,000
$1,094,087,667
12,491
$418,774,955
$93,408,700
$97,459,452
New Hampshire
$281,190,000
$454,884,554
5,663
$172,983,128
$35,718,943
$37,814,436
New Jersey
$986,277,000
$1,758,541,631
16,769
$684,319,933
$140,560,789
$154,752,981
New Mexico
$327,119,000
$557,874,463
8,151
$211,540,928
$49,111,736
$36,988,935
New York
$4,151,793,000
$7,507,779,472
79,921
$3,051,051,895
$721,683,009
$624,469,161
North Carolina
$929,663,000
$1,674,095,198
20,636
$628,627,734
$144,742,084
$129,762,265
North Dakota
$130,184,000
$206,086,891
2,950
$72,830,440
$15,814,811
$14,357,992
Ohio
$738,805,000
$1,379,777,256
16,275
$503,677,242
$113,420,714
$95,208,719
Oklahoma
$474,662,000
$863,767,996
13,167
$297,847,830
$58,496,559
$56,865,284
Oregon
$1,697,223,000
$3,121,531,880
41,243
$1,264,990,530
$284,493,082
$274,511,570
Pennsylvania
$1,270,888,000
$2,444,885,524
26,579
$912,761,463
$185,533,170
$188,494,228
Rhode Island
$200,480,000
$302,850,456
3,679
$114,349,135
$27,504,511
$24,058,109
South Carolina
$467,254,000
$824,033,220
11,194
$300,154,146
$63,879,265
$57,360,269
South Dakota
$166,995,000
$230,992,366
3,749
$80,476,958
$15,595,298
$15,410,434
Tennessee
$942,573,000
$1,767,482,300
23,256
$670,860,077
$131,825,603
$134,167,350
Texas
$1,823,759,000
$13,830,501,882
146,024
$5,088,942,848
$1,073,745,789
$1,054,082,569
Utah
$585,404,000
$1,070,956,389
14,958
$428,091,442
$89,525,631
$79,882,617
Vermont
$288,507,000
$473,910,583
7,960
$189,856,400
$39,593,056
$36,007,004
Virginia
$958,607,000
$1,730,743,274
23,616
$689,396,553
$122,809,236
$135,396,663
Washington
$3,173,373,000
$5,549,730,265
63,327
$2,132,888,979
$448,488,469
$453,532,429
West Virginia
$325,817,122
$494,302,602
7,721
$184,411,508
$38,887,302
$35,193,978
Wisconsin
$1,488,857,000
$2,631,408,933
36,462
$974,552,606
$235,999,781
$193,894,294
Wyoming
$350,257,000
$556,070,251
8,232
$197,738,723
$46,872,106
$42,621,222
U.S.
$54,890,272,000
$142,147,057,177
1,379,282
$53,036,586,430
$10,277,128,026
$10,818,805,399
(1) Retail Sales (2) Industry Output or Ripple Effect10 Wildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011
Wildlife-watching in the U.S. has
significant economic impacts at the
local, state, and national levels. In
2011, expenditures on wildlife watching
generated $142.0 billion in economic
output, 1.4 million jobs, and $21.1 billion
in state, local, and federal tax revenues.
Wildlife watching’s continued popularity
gives evidence to the importance that
people attach to diverse, accessible, and
robust fish and wildlife populations.
The magnitude of its economic impacts
proves that wildlife watching is a major
force, driving billions in spending around
the country. These economic impacts can
be the life-blood of a local economy. Rural
areas can attract thousands of wildlife
watchers each year, generating millions
of dollars.
USFWS
Summary
USFWS
Wildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011 11
Fortune Magazine. http://money.cnn.
com/magazines/fortune/fortune500/2011/
full_list/ Accessed January 2014.
IMPLAN Group LCC. IMPLAN Version
3 software and data system. Huntersville,
North Carolina. http://implan.com
Miller, Ronald E. and Peter D. Blair.
Input-Output Analysis: Foundations
and Extensions. Englewood Cliffs NJ:
Prentice-Hall, 1985.
Southwick Associates. Hunting in
America: An Economic Force for
Conservation. Produced for the
National Shooting Sports Foundation in
partnership with the Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies. 2012.
Southwick Associates. Sportfishing
in America: An Economic Force
for Conservation. Produced for the
American Sportfishing Association (ASA)
under a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) Sportfishing Restoration
Grant (F12AP00137, VA M-26-R)
awarded by the Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies (AFWA), 2012
Taylor, Carol, Susan Winter, Greg Alward
and Eric Siverts. Micro IMPLAN User’s
Guide. Fort Collins CO: U.S. Department
of Agriculture – Forest Service, Land
Management Planning Systems Group,
1993.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and
Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 2011
National Survey of Fishing, Hunting,
and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.
Washington DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, Revised September 2013.
Sources
USFWS
USFWS
12 Wildllife Watching in the U.S.: The Economic Impacts on National and State Economies in 2011
All photos: USFWS
U.S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
http://wsfrprograms.fws.gov
Cover photo: USFWS